
















A « o " • „ ^ 



^ °.^3^** 4* % ^*56v «$^%. °*!vPv ** v % "•' 



















7 , ^^ ".' 






V v »L^L', 






-h<^ -i 






o *>«^^ , . > o^ ^ '^ 







, °^ *••»• A <V ^ ♦*"?!•• <0^ V *».»* A <. ♦7T7. 






A 9* -i 












THE FOUKTH JjOINT DEBATE 



GEORGE NORTHROP, Esq, AND HOI, WILLIAM 0, KELLEY, 

IN THE HALL OF THE SPRING GARDEN INSTITUTE, THURSDAY EVENING, 

SEPTEMBER 29, 1864. 



LEONARD R, FLETCHER, Esq., Moderator. 



REPLY OF GEORGE NORTHROP, Esq. 

PHONOGRAPHIC REPORT OF D. WOLFE BROWN. 

Fellow- Citizens : — After all the discursiveness of my friend for some time past, his 
wandering over the length and breadth of thi3 country, he has come to the conclusion 
io answer, ridicule, or attempt to answer, certain propositions and questions which were 
^ated by me at the first meeting, and which have been repeated at each meeting since. 
Before, however, recurring to what he has said upon those'Subjeet3, I take leave here to 
state to him and to you that he shall not place mo upon just such points as he pleaseg, 
>nd, when he gets me upon a foundation which he has built, attack me on account of 
he weakness of that foundation ; for I admit, in advance, that his foundations are weak, 
md I do not intend to stand on them. 

He says that he is in favor of the war. He declares that I am in favor of the Con- 
iederate States and their war. This, I have already stated over and over, is incorrect 
and I agaiu affirm my first statement as to the incorrectness of his suggestion. I have 
<aid from first to last, as those who have heard me will admit, that I am not fehtim'a the 
cattle of the South here before you; — I have never attempted to do so. I am (h'-brino- 
or my own rights and privileges as a Pennsylvanian, and I do not intend, sir, [addressing 
fudge Kelley,] that either you or I shall be placed in a false position in this contest*, 
it won't do, sir, to march me down in your imagination side by side with Jefferson Davis 
md then put the bayonet that you are so found of alluding to against my breast. It 
von't do, sir, to talk about your theory of blowing out brains, and place me where you 
lave a dead line on me. I know very well where you would have me; but 1 am here 
and I may as well say it now, in thanking you, gentlemen, for the kind gentlemanly 
nanner in which you have listened to all that has been said in this discussion,) — I am 
iere before you the living evidence of the power of the Democratic party, — even out of 
>ifiee, and away from patronage to assert and maintain under' the Constitution- the rights 
vhich protect you and protect me. Three years ago, gentlemen, would this discussion 
lave been allowed ? The free speech which we have to-day has been extorted by the 
oanly posidon of the Democratic party, which even its enemies have respected. This 
s the party which it is contended is always wrong; but I believe that once ia a while 
t least, it has about it an element of right and of power. 

I have said over and over agaiu that I am not the apologist of the rebellion. I have 
iOt anything upon the record to equal Abraham Lincoln's apology for secession and 
ebellion. Why put me in that category? Is it fair, sir? Find me one tithe of his 
ecord in support of both to show that I have ever favored either, and I will thank you.. 



But, sir, when you talk about my position, let me modestly refer to yours. You are 
a man of war. Unmitigated hostility is your cry. You have no sympathy with the 
man who talks of peace, or who would bring about great results by peace. Have you 
been, sir, life-long a war man? Was there not in 1850 a peace convention or congress 
held in this city, at which Elihu Burritt, fresh from the great Peace Congress of Paris, 
was present, and spoke ? Were not you, sir, one of the Vice-Presidents of that Peace 
Congress or Convention, which passed resolutions to the effect that the time had passed 
when war should be the arbiter of questions between men and nations ? Why, sir, what 
is the difficulty now ? If various texts of Scripture and the mission of Christ himself, 
were invoked at that time as illustrations of the value of peace, why are not those illus- 
trations of equal applicability now ? There had been rebellions prior to that time; there 
had been wars prior to that time. Why was it that then your heart melted for tho 
abstract suffering of humanity by reason of war, and that now you have nothing but 
terrible relentlessness in the midst of the dread realities that are oppressing your own 
countrymen ? Why can you sympathize with the horrors and sufferings incident to the 
wars that have been fought in Europe, and urge a peaceful solution of international 
difficulties, and ask in the name of the Christ of peace and the God of humanity, that 
war should not be heard of throughout all lands except yours? Why is it, sir, that with 
you at that time peace was so good a thing, and that now the man who even talks of 
peace — of pausing in this march of war and carnage is called a rebel and a traitor? 
Why was it that peace was then the great principle that should be striven for, and by 
which all difficulties might then have been settled? I am sorry that I have not here 
the pamphlet containing those resolutions and speeches; but I am certain that you will 
not deny the record. I profess at least, to be consistent; and if I ever had stood 
up for peace as I do now, I would keep the record through all the exigencies of 
the bloodiest contest, because I know well that a departure could not be justified 
as a matter of principle, but as a matter of personal feeling and hatred ; and I say 
farther, that you have no right to indulge feelings of hatred and bitterness, and to 
invoke nothing but the elements of power and destruction, and talk of blowing other 
men's brains out, and of putting bayonets to other people's breasts. We at home, sir, 
can talk about those things with a great deal of satisfaction. We can hear of the shock 
of armies; we can hear of the thousands of dead piled up; but the man who asks that 
contending armies shall pause is a "rebel," and forsooth, a "traitor," though he asks it for 
the reconstruction of his country and the rights of the people. It won't do, sir, to erect 
weak foundations, and tell me that I stand on them. I do not stand upon any such 
principles as the gentleman attributes to me, and I have avowed it over and over again. 
I am not fighting the battle of the South. I am fighting the battle of the North — of the 
Middle States, of Pennsylvania, as against either the revolution of the South or tho 
friendish hatred of New England which this Administration has allowed to control the 
theory of their government. 

Well, sir, I have sympathy for any suffering man. I have sj'mpathy even for the 
man who is hung, when the law has pronounced the sentence, and though it is a proper 
execution of the sentence. Why, sir, have you no sympathy ? It is generally considered 
that mercy is the grandest attribute of the Deity. Why, then, should it disgrace a man 
to plead for mercy ? 

Gentlemen, I tell you that there is something behind all this " love of country " and 
" this broad land of ours shall be united again" and " the flag floating over every part 
of it," There is something behind all this, and you, sir, know there is. 

When the gentleman talks about an armistice, he speaks as though that necessarily 
gave up everything that had been taken on either side — as though it withdrew the 
armies from their threatening position. It is not so, and he knows it is not so. Why 
not pause? You have gone "onward to Richmond" long enough with bayonets and 
with cannon. Might you not pause in some other spirit than a spirit of hatred ? Might 
you not pause for some other reason than because you were compelled to do so ? Is 
there nothing but the brute force of conquest on the one baud, or the brute force of suc- 
cessful opposition on the other, that can bring a pause in this conflict? I say that there 
is reason for pausing beyoud that of the necessity for quiet and rest. There is a reason 
for it in the great future — the future of reconstruction which, as I shall show, means in 
the gentleman's view something different from what he has explained. 



The gentleman has alluded to the course of the Administration with regard to Admiral 
Wilkes. He has stated, I believe, that he voted for the resolution of thanks to that 
officer, and also voted for the practical condemnation of him under Mr. Seward's reply. 
There is just the objection I have to him and his party. It is just that double-barrelled 
policy which I want to understand. I want to know what alternative directions are to 
bo pursued. I want you, sir, to lay down your line of policy so that I can understand 
it. One of my objects in discussing these political questions with'you, is that 
I may find out, if possible, what your theories are. In some respects you agree 
with Mr. Lincoln; in others, as I shall show, you differ from Mr. Lincoln. These are 
just the difficulties. I want that which is of more importance to the citizen than any 
thing else — a principle which shall be uniform in its application, so that you and I may 
always know what the law is, and may always be protected in carrying out that law. 

You have read an extract from the letter of General Sherman in which war is pro- 
nounced to be a dire calamity, and thus you always characterize war when you refer to 
a war -out of this country. I admit the principle, and I say that the direst of all wars is 
a civil war, conflicting, elements in the bosom of the same country. For taking this 
ground, I am blamed. I am called a "sympathizer with the Southern rebellion," be- 
cause I show how all this conflict has legitimately sprung from the antagonisms taught 
in certain sections of this country. 

The gentleman has said that in the case of a conflagration, we may burn down a house or 
blow it up to save other property. He contends that there may, in certain cases, be a 
necessity for such destruction, in order that still greater destruction may be prevented; 
and he contends that this principle of necessity, transcending all law, is to be applied to 
the preseut condition of our country. Now, I am here contending for principles which 
will put out the conflagration itself, without blowing up houses or " blowing out brains." 
It is on this point that I take issue with the gentleman. He insists that there must and 
shall be war — that there shall be no earthly means admitted for settling that war — that 
it shall not pause or rest — that it shall keep on one direct and inevitable line to a certain 
result — or rather, to an uncertain result. He contends that because war has been 
inaugurated as the policy of the Government, therefore we are justified in blow- 
ing up everything else, provided we save the war. I do not believe in that doctrine. 
I want to stop the war before the necessity comes for blowing up everything else. I want 
to stop the conflagration before it threatens everything. If I could have had my way, I 
would have put out this conflagration when a single bucket of water would have been 
sufficient to have done it. I now stand here, and the Democratic party stands here, to 
struggle for the privilege of putting out this fire of civil war before it extends everywhere 
and reaches its terrible height. We contend that you canuot quench this spreading con- 
flagration by putting camphene and other combustibles into the fire. 

The gentleman has urged the impossibility of the States coming back as they were. 
Gentlemen, I do not think it an impossibility, except under his theories. I believe that 
it is very true that when you have dismembered and destroyed a thing to the utmost ex- 
tent of your power, you may not be able to restore it to its original condition. That is 
the objection — that you assume the right to destroy or impair, and the right to keep 
what you have so impaired, in that condition. It is simply because you have done and 
are doing these things, that it has been made almost impossible to reconstruct the Union 
as it was under the Constitution. In order that the work of reconstruction may not be 
reudered impossible by that destructive policy, I and the great party to which I belong 
are asking you to-day to pause. We say to you do not go on until you so change the 
elements that there cau be no reconstruction. Do not go on until there is left in the 
Southern States nothing but mere desolation. Do you ask the great Northern people 
to continue acting under your theories until the work of reconstruction shall be impos- 
sible ? I say, pause : stay your hand and see whether there is not a possibility at the 
present time of reconstruction before the work of destruction has proceeded farther. You 
have, it is true, dismembered Virginia, and you ask me how she shall come back. Well, 
I say to you frankly, before you go to work to dismember other States, and create ad- 
ditional difficulty, try whether you cannot bring them back as whole States. This is my 
ground. When you get affairs in such a position that reconstruction is impossible, 
what then is left you ? When you tell me that it is impossible to reconstruct under 
the Constitution; is it because you do not intend that there shall be reconstruction under 



the Constitution? Is it because you agree (though you hayc not so announced it) with 
the principles of Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, declaring that the Southern States shall 
never come back except without, slavery ? That is the question on which I want you 
to avow yourself. 

Is that your ultimatum ? Is that the position you take? Most you go on dividing 
and destroying, taking away every element of right which those people have under the 
Constitution, and then turn, and ask what their rights are? I want the great recon- 
structive principles applied, and I want them applied before it is too late; for I want a 
reconstructed union of States — aye, States with sovereign elements in them, and not 
mere provinces to wait the beck of any power or any Administration — to be mere 
apanages. I do want States brought back. I do not want them sliced up to suit 
your particular views, about slavery or any thing else. I do not want the white men of 
the South destroyed from the face of the earth that the negro and the New England man 
may hold those provinces of the South, and settle and work them. What is- the object 
of.the present policy ? What can be the result? What are you fighting for ? You are 
fighting certainly to overwhelm and destroy the white element of the South. Now, you 
cannot bring those people back after you have destroyed them; you cannot restore those 
outraged men to brotherhood with you. That is out of the question. Your whole idea 
of reconstruction seems to be, as I first alleged, a reconstruction in which the only thing 
recognized in the South should be its broad acres, and not the population, or the princi- 
ples of the people of the South. I want to stop this war if I can, and bring 
men as well as acres back again. I want this broad country preserved as much as you 
do; but I want it for a different purpose from that for which you desire it. 1 do not 
want the South brought back desolated that it may be farmed by the enterprising gen- 
tlemen of New England who will release the slaves from the " terrible" bondage which 
so shocks their humanity, and transfer them to a condition which will be pretty nearly 
equivalent, when, those slaves shall work for their liberal New England masters. 

The question of wages is not the important thing. It matters little, I think, in a 
question like this, whether you pay the negro by his keep, or whether you pay him by — 
I was. going to say gold, but I will say paper, out of respect to my friend. It does not 
matter to me in what particular compensation you may pay him. There are a great 
many white men in the North who work all their lives for their mere support. I agree 
with the gentleman thus far,-*hat I would like to see every Northern man do a great 
deal better than the slave in the South, and make as much as possible beyond what he 
needs to meet his daily wants. But, gentlemen, there are a great many who do not do 
more than that. This question of wages is a very pretty thing to throw out; 
but apply the test and see what it comes to at last. Stripped of everything, the 
Whole question comes down to the single matter of the theory of slavery. 

I now turn to notice another subject to which the gentleman has referred at a former 
meeting; and in followiug the course of his remarks I must necessarily be somewhat 
desultory. I desire to meet all the gentleman's suggestions, and will do so to the best 
of my ability. When the gentleman was reading the other night from the Constitution 
or by-laws of a certain alphabetical society, I did not understand precisely whether he 
called them the K. G. C's, or the S. G. C's, or the Sons of Liberty. 

Judge Kelley. Some of them were called by the latter name. 

Mb. Northrop. Will the gentleman allow me to see what they call themselves? I 
have never had the pleasure of looking at the pamphlet before. 

Judge Kelley. [Handing him the pamphlets ] That is the report of the society 
of which Vallandighuia is the commander; here are the others. 

Mr. NoRTllRor. I propose to show who besides Mr. Vallandigham belong to the 
Sons of Liberty. I see that they are so called, sir, in your pamphlet. 

Judge Kelley. It is not my pamphlet; it is theirs. 

Mr. Northrop. Well, sir, there is one of your abstractions again. I ask the gen- 
tleman for a paper which he produces, and when I call it " his pamphlet" he says, " Oh 
no ! it is not my pamphlet; it is theirs," Now, here is just the peculiarity of the gen- 



tletnan. He is very much like the Frenchman's flea — when you put your finger on him 
he is not there. 

Mr. Northrop reads from the Pamphlet the title of the Society " Sons of Liberty." 
Well, now, gentlemen, I happened fortunately to have -to-day, a little statement 
about these Sons of Liberty, and as the gentleman seems so exercised in his mind 
about that subject, I propose to read from the Philadelphia Constitutional Union 
of July 19th, 1So2, a little account of the Sons of Liberty. I had forgotten all 
about this thing until the gentleman made it a particular point in this case that 
"the Sons of Liberty" should have a proper position in this discussion. Well, now, 
as I told the gentleman the other night, I could not say whether they belonged to a 
Know-nothing organization, or whether they belonged -to the Union League. I have the 
satisfaction of announcing to-night that they are a branch of the Union League, and 
were the foundation of that organization. I hope that now I have at least on one point 
satisfied the gentleman that this terrible association, which I first heard of almost from 
him, is one that he can perfectly endorse as "loyal." Now, to my record. 

[Mr. Northrop reads from the paper.] 

"the sons of liberty." 

" This is a title of a secret political society, which has its head in this city, and branches 
in all parts of this and other States. Its purpose is to amalgamate and thus make more 
effective all forms of opposition to the Democratic party, the Constitution and the Union. 
1 ho head-quarters and meeting-place of the society in this city, is at the Sanson) Street 
II all, in Sansom street, between Sixth and Seventh streets. Stated meetings are helcl on 
Friday night of each week, when members are proposed and elected, reports received from 
the different committees, and other matters suggested and acted upon which are calcu- 
lated to further the interests and objects of the association. The members are bound 
her by oaths so shockingly blasphemous and revolting, as to. preclude their publica- 
tion in our columns, — oaths which bind them to use all their energies to frustrate the 
efforts of the Democratic party to rally the loyal, patriotic and conservative men of the 
country, upon the platform of the " Constitution as it is, and the Union as it was," and 
thus rescue the nation from that perilous condition into which it has been plunged by thirty 
years of the Abolition prayers, labors and exertions." 

I will not take up time by reading the whole of this; but the Sons of Liberty seem to 
sympathize, as stated here, with Wendell Phillip's and men of that kind, as against the 
('institution. Let mc refer, however, to the names- of some of the officers, as given by 
this paper. The President was a. gentleman, by name John Dolman. The Vice-Presi- 
dents were R M. Batturs, Charles Humphreys, Robert M. Foust, Morton A. Everley. 

■■rotary, John Gr Franklin Corresponding Secretaries, William B. Leeds, Charles 
O'Neil, J. Wagner Jermou. So the list continues. I find that among what is called 
the council of that association are Messrs. Amos Briggs, William L\ Mann, William M. 
Pull, John G. Butler, James Freeborn, C. A. Walborn (who, I believe, is the post- 
master of this city, appointed by the ^present Administration.) Here are the names of 
ninety-six gentlemen, all given as the council to be elected at a certain meeting. 

Now, gentlemen, that may seem to you as a very unsatisfactory record. There we 
have the organization of the Sons of Liberty, whom the gentleman has been for the last two 
nights trying to crucify. I sympathize with him in his efforts. The statement published 
in this paper led unfortunately to a certain legal proceeding, and in the same paper of 
. July. 26, 186°, is an account of the examination of the President of this very society, 
under oath. The acedutit is given in thc^e words; 

"The President of the Secret Order, known as 'The Sons of Liberty,' (Mr. John Dol- 
man,) on Wednesday last instituted a suit for libel against Joseph Severn,?, Esq., alleging 
him to be the proprietor of The Constitutional Union, and charging him with libel in the 
publication of an- article in that paper, on the. 19th instant, in reference to the order of 
' The Sons of Liberty.' The hearing took place before Alderman Beitlor, and resulted iu 
Mr. Sevcrns being held to bail in 8800 to answer the charge. The following is the tes- 
timony of Mr. Dolman, the complainant, as given before the magistrate, and copied from 
the North American : — 



"Mr. John Dolman was now called to the stand. On being sworn he said that he 
helieved the article published in the paper was a libel on him and others, and prejudicial 
to all. He desired to make a brief statement, so that the case could be properly under- 
stood. He said he was the President of an association called " The Sous of Liberty.' 
The article he complained of is headed 'The Sons of Liberty,' therefore there can be no 
one alluded to but me. The publication of the names appended to the libel is a copy of 
a printed ticket used in our association at an election for officers." (So the names are 
nailed to the association as being upon a ticket to be used at an election.) 

" Cross-examined by Mr. Brooke. 

"Question. — Where do you meet? 

"Answer. — In Sansom Street Hall. 

" Question. — When ? » 

"Answer. — On Friday evenings. 

"Question. — What is the object of your association ? 

"Answer. — To sustain the country and preserve the Constitution and the Union, auc 
to put down treason." 

It appears that they are to constitute themselves the judges of "treason •" that wa 
the doctrine even at that early day— although the gentleman admits, and the Democrat 
have always thought, that the courts, instead of private bodies of men, trying you ii 
secret, ought to be the judges of these crimes. 

"Question. — Is it a secret association? 

"Answer — Yes. 

"Question. — What are the qualifications of membership? 

"Answer. — Loyalty and citizenship. 

"Question. — Is there a form of initiation ? 

"Answer. — There is. 

"Question. — What is that form ? 

"Answer. — I decline answering. 

" Mr. Brooke pressed the question on this point, for he said that it was positively 
necessary to know all about the association in order to ascertain whether th.e public; i 
of the alleged libel was really a libel. He claimed the right as a citizen to expose any 

society. The law knows no secret society, no matter what may be its objects. 

" The Alderman replied that he could not sec it as the counsel did. If the society i.^ 
unlawful, it is for the defence to show it. 

Mr. Brooke said, Well, your honor, I dispute the fact that there is such a society as 
the Sons of Liberty. 

" Mr. Dolman (still en the witness staud,) — I have sworn there is. 

" Mr. Brooke. — Well, sir, it is right that I should know its forms and customs. 



" Mr. Briggs. — Well, you have heard them already. You have heard of the initiation, 
and that its object is simply to sustain the Constitution and the laws. 

" Mr. Brooke. — What takes place at your meetings? 

"Answer. — We initiate members. 

"Question. — What else ? 

"Mr. Briggs (interruptingly) — Now, may it please your honor, what, in the name of 
common sense, has this to do with the charge of libel? Why ask such irrevelant ques- 
tions? It is only taking up time for nothing. Let the counsel of the defence take the 
article as published, read it, and then propound his questions to meet the charges. There 
is no use going on a fishing excursion to find out irrevelant matter. Let us come down 
at once to the point — is the article complained of true or is it false ? 

"Mr. Brooke reads the article to himself, and says: — Are the members bound by 
oath ? 

"Answer. — They are. 

" Mr. Brooke now read aloud that the oath taken by the members is too shocking for 
publication, and then asked the witness if it was so? 

"Answer. — That statement is false. 

"Question. — Is there nothing said about the Democratic party? 

"Answer. — No, sir, not a word. 

"Question, — (Mr. Brooke's eyes on the paper.) Are the members instructed or re- 
quested to find out the doings of any political party ? 

"Answer. — (Promptly.) No, sir; no allusion is ever made to any political party, 
unless you call the Secessionists a party. 

"Question. — Don't the Sons of Liberty make efforts to sustain the present Adminis- 
tration ? 

"Answer. — No, sir." (They do not do anything, you see. They do not even do 
that.) 

" Question. — Well, what are you organized for, then ? (Mr. Brooke now raised his 
head from reading the paper.) 

"Answer. — It is to support the Government of the United States. 

" Question. — What is the form of the oath and the initiation ? 

" Answer. — I decline to answer. 

" Question. — Have you a pass-word and a sign ? 

"Answer. — Yes, sir. 

" Question. — What are they? 

" Ansioer. — I decline to answer. 



8 

11 Question. — Would they criminate you if you should state them ? 

" Answer. — Well, uo. 

" Mr. Briggs now objects, because the questions are not cross-examination. 

" Question. — Do you consider there is any malice in this publication ? 

" Ansiccr. — I do think it comes up to what is known as legal malice. I think I 
am the person alluded to in the article, — not personally, but as the President. 1 was 
not advised by any of the members to enter suit. I had some talk on the subject with 
a few members. I told several -that I intended to bring suit- for libel. 

" Question. — Have you a sign of recognition outside of the lodge? 

{t Answer. — Yes, we have. 

" Mr. Brooke.— That will do." 

Now, geutlemcn, I know that from the candor and frankness of my friend, he will 
thank me for explaining what he has had so much trouble to find out, — wlio are the 
"Suns cf Liberty. " On that point i think my explanation is satisfactory. If it is not, 
I certainly cannot make it more so. I have gone into the gentleman's own party to 
prove what that association is, and what are its objects, as well as these can be ascer- 
tained from testimony under oath, and if I do not do better, it is because they do not 
give me an opportunity. Now, sir, why not say frankly that this was an association to 
which your friends, — men who are prominent in your party, have belonged, instead of 
reading from a book which I never saw, and I was going to say, never heard of, and I do 
not beiieve that T did until you read it to us, to make us believe that all the Democrats 
belong to that society. I do not know what other object you could have bad. I do not 
know what other reason there should be for such an argument, no matter if there should 
be a section of my party belonging to secret, organizations. If the gentleman argues 
with me that we have taken their title and transferred their principles I say, — Well, so 
be it: -if ynu set a bad example (and I do not know when you set veiy good ones,) we 
must follow the best you set. I have given the gentleman ail the record that I can give 
him. So much for the secret organizations. 

The difficulty with the gentleman seems to be that Mr. Valiandigham belongs to this 
secret organization. Mr. Yallandigham is, I think the gentleman said, the President 
of this organization. Well, I do not happen to be a member of the Administration 
party. I have no control of any part of the " secret -service fund" of, I think, — twenty 
ov thirty millions of dollars, of which no accouut is ever given ; and I cannoi toll all the 
secrets of an organization which seems to be an organization of the Republican party, or 
certainly of gentlemen belonging to it. I do not know what Mr. Valiandigham has 
seen fly, but 1 do know what he has openly, done. Just let us see what he has done. 
We all know the old story about giving a dog a bad name; but when you are seeking to 
hound a man d »wn and use his name as a word of terrible import, it is very well 
to understand what the man has done, and why he represents such a fearful element. 
I understand it ; you understand it. Mr. Valiandigham was (and the Administration 
have in act so declared) unjustly banished for commenting upon an order of General 
Bumsidej and he comes back in the face of day to his own country, and they dare not 
him. That is his story. I therefore say that Mr. Valiandigham is at least a bold, 
brave man; and if he does belong to secret organizations which are strong enough to 
sustain him, it is because you have made it. necessary that there should be some such 
tion for the citizen. You do not leave a man to his individual rights and his 
rights before the legal tribunals. You took Mr. Valiandigham before a court martial, 
though he was a civilian and owed no military service or fealty, and you pronounced 
upon him a sentence of banishment. Now, sir, show me tin- law for that. Show 
me the law for a punishment of exile in this country. When you do that, I 
will talk to you about the way iu which the proceedings wore conducted. You know, 



sir, and the Administration sitting quietly while Mr. Vallandigham ranges the broad 
extent of this Northern country, know, that he was unjustly exiled and is right- 
fully back. What has he ever said against the country, against the Constitution, 
against the laws? You did not dare to try him, and you dare not now try him under 
any law before a civil tribunal. Sir, do not stigmatize a man whom you dare not 
accuse openly of a crime, and whom you. dare not try before the tribunals of his country. 
Do not abuse the man whom you dare not touch vndcr the 'poi&er 6/jhe hue. 

It is a very easy thing to apply opprobrious epithets to men ; but it is another thing 
for those men to deserve them. I want the people to understand now the difference 
between words and facts. Because a man raises his hands in affected holy horror and 
says, " Vallandigham I" I do not want you to believe that there is a besom of destruction 
that is going to sweep away everything. I admit that the man who stands in times like 
these against the power of an Administration and its bayonets — who has found the truth 
and maiutains the rights of himself and his fellow men, is terrible to power, and all such 
men will be terrible to power. But so much for Mr. Vallandigham. 

I have replied to the summary which my distinguished friend upon the other side 
made in his opening speech. If he had gone farther he probably would have made the 
line between us still more distinct. He would have dared to say : "I am a Union 
man ; you (referring to me) are a secessionist." He fancies distinctions to suit himself. 
But I take the liberty of stating before you, for myself, what my position is, and what 
my doctrines are. I still assert that right, and I will not be put upon false grounds, 
or made seemingly to assume positions which I have not uttered or suggested, and to 
which I have only alluded when the gentlemau himself has introduced them. 

The gentleman still insists upon the war, and I am very much out of his good graces 
because I beg leave to differ with him in regard to the result of this war. He tikes the 
position of Artemus Ward, a celebrated writer of jocular character, who has announced 
that he is "for this war to the last drop of blood of any relation his wife has." The 
gentleman is in favor of everybody but himself fighting. Well, gentlemen, although 
some men must stay at home to keep up excitements, the best test in the world of the 
thorough, unmitigated honesty which prompts a man to sustain a view is the extent to 
which he will. go in carrying out that view. I must say that I, personally would prefer 
peace; I would rather that a man should not have "his brains blown out." I. have a 
totally different set of principle's from those which the gentleman advocates. T stand 
now on the same platform on which the gentlemau stood in 1850, and I maintain that 
the proper way to settle difficulties in national affairs is by peace. I only ask that this 
peaceful method of settlement shall be tried. I do not ask that the hostile armies shall 
be withdrawn; I do not. ask that the guns which General Grant may have taken in his 
short, shfirp career to Richmond, shall be given up. I do not ask anything of the kind. 
The gentleman knows very well that an armistice requires no such thing. Let the con- 
tending forces stand in precisely the position in which Hood and Sherman stood when they 
had their armistice .of ten days. In that case was anything given up ? Now why not 
pause once in a while? If our adversaries, will not agree upon fair terms of settlement, 
so much the better for your theory; then the war must go on. If they will not accept 
a fair proposition, you will have everybody in the North on your side. Is it not worth 
while, instead of having this difficulty in the North, to satisfy our minds by giving us 
the opportunity of knowing whether they will agree with you or not ? If they will not 
agree to fair terms of settlement, then you put us in the wrong. But you take good 
care not to allow any such opportunity for peaceful agreement. Even in advance of 
any propositions made toward you for quiet and peace, you lay down as a sine qua von 
to any peaceful suggestion, conditions which you know will not be accepted. I w,mt 
the gentlemau to come to the point and say whether he believes that the proclamation of 
President Lincoln, "-To whom it may concern," embraces a proper principle, and whether 
he believes that the country is to be more effectually saved by that than by stopping the 
conflict now and having the Southern people come back, though they come back with 
slavery. That is the question which I want the gentleman to answer. 

The gentleman, in order to show that the Democratic party left him, has cited General 
Cass. Now, sir, I understand that General Cass has written a letter supporting the 
Chicago platform and nominees. I do not know whether that letter has yet been pub- 
lished; but I saw a gentleman who informed me that such a letter had been 



10 

written. It will be published perhaps to-day. So that General Cass is not a 
reliable witness to show that the Democratic party endorses Mr. Lincoln or favors 
his re-election. 

The gentleman also quotes Benjamin F. Butler — General Butler, of New Orleans, 
and of New England, and of any other place where money is to be made. Well, sir, 
I for one do not feel remarkably unhappy that the last few years of General Butler's 
record are not with the Democratic party. I do not believe that the man who could not 
live in quiet in a single town of Europe, any more than Haynau, (which I believe is the 
case with General Butler,) is the proper judge for me in questions of propriety. I do 
not believe that the man who is quoted as having been the General Jackson of modern 
times in l^evf Orleans, has made such a record there as to make any white man or any 
white woman proud of him. You may take them all, if that is the kind you get. We 
are perfectly satisfied that you should take them and use thera. There are others who 
have also been willing to do what it is always certain men who have been violently and 
suddenly converted will do — take the most extreme views on the opposite side to make 
people believe how much in earnest they are in their change of feeling or opinion. 

I will now notice the remarks of my friend in relation to the propositions ; and I 
hope I shall be enabled somewhat to enlighten him ; certainly I will try to do so. 
These five propositions are, as you will see, dependent to a certain extent one upon the 
other. He has admitted, first, that " the Constitution of the United States is within 
its limitations the supreme law of the land, and the only bond of the union of the 
States;" and secondly, that "the only mode by which the Constitution can be altered 
or amended, is prescribed by the instrument itself." The third proposition is, that 
" when any department of government exercises any power beyond or antagonistic to 
the Constitution, it is revolution. V Now, I proposed by that to show that there were 
two ways by which the Constitution could be changed : one was by the legal form of 
amendment, and the other was by an antagonism to it, which was revolution. When 
the gentleman, having looked into a dictionary and found that the word revolution is 
applied to a coach wheel, says, that he understands the spokes and tire of a revolution, 
I am very frank to say that I do not. I tire of one kind of revolution, but that is not 
the revolution of a wheel. I admit that there may be a revolution of a wheel ; but I 
do not think the gentleman has gone far enough in his dictionary. There is such*a 
thing in politics or government as a revolution. By-the-bye, I just now see the applica- 
tion of the gentleman's idea about a wheel. Boston is called " the hub of the 
universe;" and turning constantly round this central point of New England, the only 
theory of a revolution with him is that it must turn upon just such a hub. He is 
right, New England has always thought that she alone had a right to revolutionize. 
The New England people assumed the right to preach the doctriue of secession so far 
as they were concerned, when it suited them. But it does not suit thera now, and they 
oppose it. Very well ; I did not favor it when they advocated it; I do not favor it now 
when advocated by the South. 

Now in regard to the meaning of this word "revolution," I think, as I said before, 
that in determining the meaning of words, it is not worth while to limit it to a certain 
particular thing; nor is it worth while to make a slang application of it, or stretch it 
beyond its proper application. The word revolution means the overturning of a govern- 
ment — a resistance going to a certain extent against a government. Now, what the 
gentleman cannot understand, and what I am trying to make the people of this country 
believe, is that, while ordinarily, revolutions in government have been revolutions of the 
people against the ruling power — a direct antagonism and opposition of the people to 
overthrow the government, and establish for themselves some new form of government; 
there may be a revolution by the government itself against the people. Governments 
in most countries are different from ours. Few governments are constitutional govern- 
ments, and even where they are, they recognize some hereditary right and prerogatives 
in the rulers. I began by saying to you that our government was founded on a totally 
different principle — the sovereign right of the people. The framcrs of our government 
made a Constitution which not only bound the people, but bound and limited the power 
of the departments of the government. Now, while there may be a revolution by the 
people against the ruling power, yet, where there is a Constitution which defines and 
limits the powers of the controlling or executive element of a government, and when 



11 

that controlling or executive element — that department of government — yes, sir, that 
department of government — establishes a power beyond or antagonistic to that Constitu- 
tion, it does revolutionize that government; because I want you to remember one thing, 
contrary to what the Administration party have been tryiug to make the people believe, 
that Mr. Lincoln is not the government. He is the executive power in the government. 
When I say the government, I mean the combination of the elements which constitute 
the government in our country, which are the Executive, the Judicial, aud the Legis- 
lative powers. I reiterate my proposition, that when any department of government, 
Judicial, Legislative, or Executive, establishes any power beyond or antagonistic to the 
Constitution, it is revolution — a direct opposition against the principles of the govern- 
ment. It matters not whether the people on the one hand or the Executive power on 
the other, revolutionize against the government and the Constitution, it is equally revo- 
lution. They equally defy the law. The Executive power has not merely defied it in 
words; it has arrayed armed bands, as much so as Southern men have arrayed armed 
bauds against the Constitution. This is what I mean; and I hope that at last I have 
made myself understood in using the term "department of government," and in using 
the word "revolution." Any department of government which assumes the power and 
has the ambition, revolutionizes this government as much as the people can revolutionize 
the government, because between the two, stands that on which the government is 
founded, aud whether the people or the rulers, as they are called, illegally set it aside, 
either or both revolutionize the government. 

I hope that I have explained the proposition to the gentleman's understanding. 
I go farther. I will not rely simply upon my own doctrine on this subject. I acci- 
dentally turned to a work which I think the gentleman will admit is of great authority — 
Geo. T. Curtis' " History of the Origin, Formation and Adoption of the Constitution 
of the United States, with Notices of its Principal Framers." And here the gentleman 
will see precisely what was the point which I took with regard to amendments and 
revolution. I say that an amendment under the Constitution is a legal change; the 
alteration of the Constitution in any other way is an illegal change; and it may be 
revolution either by the people or by a department of government. And here you find 
the doctrine I have laid down stated by this very learned and distinguished gentleman, 
who, it may not perhaps be amiss to say, is, I believe, a New Euglander. 

He says in this work on the Constitution, vol ii., page 473 : 

"The existence and operation of a prescribed method of changing particular features 
of a government mark the line between amendment and revolution, and render a resort 
to the latter for the purpose of amelioration or reform, save in extreme cases of oppres- 
sion, unnecessary. According to our American theory of government, revolution and 
amendment both rest upou the doctrine that the people are the source of all political 
power, and each of them is the exercise of an ultimate right. But this right is exer- 
cised, in the process of amendment, in a prescribed form, which preserves the continuity 
of the existiug government, and changes onlj such of its fundamental rules as require 
Revision., without the destruction of any public or private rights that may have become 
vested under the former rule. Revolution, on the contrary, proceeds without form, is 
the violent disruption of the obligations resting on the authority of the former govern- 
ment, aud terminates its existence often without saving any cf the rights which may 
have grown up uuder it." 

I think that I have now vindicated my third proposition with regard to what may be 
a revolution and what the position of the government may be made by revolution. 
Now I come to the " transcendental, metaphysical nonsense," as the gentleman has 
called it, of the fourth proposition. Still the old principle of calliug names ! 

Jllge Kelley. No: I only queried. 

Ma, Northrop. "Well, then, as leng as it is a mere question I shall take the liberty 
to answer it as gently as possible. 

My fourth proposition is in these words: "A successful revolution against, the Con- 
stitution by those in power subverts the principles of our government, produces anarchy 
and establishes a despotism." Well, I maintain that such is the fact, and I say that it 
is clear. I have shown you what revolution is. The difficulty about the wheel is out 



12 

of the way. I say, therefore, under Judge Curtis' idea of revolution, when Mr. Lincoln 
undertakes to antagonize the Constitution, he being the executive department of the 
government, and succeeds in putting down, or putting out,, or over-riding any principle 
of that Constitution, he subverts the principles of our government. 

Yery well; what is the case when the principles of the government are subverted? 
When you count twenty you cannot arrive at the result without going through one, two, 
three, etc., to twenty. There must be a beginning, a middle and an end. A word is 
not revolution. There must be a certain gradation of proceedings in all things. You 
first subvert the principles of the government in the very act of successful revolution; 
and you produce anarchy, because you take away the principles and controlling elements 
of the Constitution; you deprive us of all that which we have looked up to as the para- 
mount and controlling influence; and for the time there is anarchy, because there is no 
law. What is the result? Hard upon the heels of that comes despotism; and I admit 
that it comes so quickly that it was hardly worth while for me to say that when you 
subvert the principles of the government anarchy is produced and a despotism estab- 
lished. It is true that the despotism may hasten on so rapidly as hardly to give breathing 
.-, fe before it comes. But I will give you this intermediate space in order that your 
blood may cool and reflection may come again. A successful revolution does subvert 
the principles of government; and, when tbey are subverted, there is no law until 
this struggling despotism establishes itself; and then, as the gentleman admits, and I 
admit, there is no longer anarchy. But I do not want to see either of these grades. 
I do not want to sec the principles of government subverted. I do not want to see 
anarchy, and confusion, and terror, and lawlessness; and I do not want to see a despo- 
tism established out of these elements of disorder. I believe that there is anarchy aricl 
despotism in this country now, and that the hand of power alone keeps together certain 
parts of it. Even in places whore there is no war, you will not, allow men. to rise up and 
under the hWj and this is otic of . the proofs of anarchy — the law is set aside. 
New, gentlemen, I think that I have shown the gradation to despotism, notwithstanding 
the " tram/cudeutal, metaphysical nonsense" of the proposition. 

The ;;i'Uf!ei!!:ui does not like any of my words. I am rather sorry for that; but 
•as to the fifth proposition, which he attempts to answer — "that the theory of the 
equality of the negro with the white man is not a justifiable principle of revolution" — 
he sayf that he does not understand it — that he would have understood it, if I had said 
" cause" instead of "principle." Now, every cause is supposed to have a principle, 
and 1 prefer the word principle, because T still think, notwithstanding his criticism, that 
it is the better word. I have charged that Mr. Lincoln's theory of the equality of the 

S' v, ith the white man and his opposition to slavery, with his carrying out the New 
England doctrines against shivery, with his proclamation in relation to slavery which is 
headed "To whom it may concern," and in which the only condition upon which he 
will receive the South back is stated to be that of giving up slavery — I say that that 
theory of Mr. Lincoln about the giving up of slavery, and about gradually working the 
black man on- to an equality with the white man, is not a justifiable principle of r< < 
tion. The theory, sir, is your principle. I want you to stop there. When you adopt 
it and preach it as a cause, I want } r ou to pause at that second step. I say that, if you 
hold that theory, I do not consider it a justifiable principle on which you shall assert 
the right or the propriety of revolutionizing the government. I maintain, therefore, 
that it is not a proper and a justifiable principle of revolution. T think that the propo- 
sition is (Jlear ; I think that the words are tolerably fair. I certainly think that they 
have meanjng. 

1 pi pi se ii' w, although my time is short, to illustrate what I have said and what the 
gentleman has denied in relation to the third question. Thfi third question is this : 
" Do you approve of any, or all, of the twenty-three Acts of Congress, each bavin- for 
' iplared purpose of giving to the negro all the rights, immunities, and 
privileged which have hitherto been enjoyed by the white man only?" The gentleman 
tejls you ih it no such Act has. been passed — that Congress has no siich power — that it 

which have the righl to make " cithrns." Well, gentlemen, there are r-ij 
immunities, and privileges which have been enjoyed by the white man beside the simple 
citizenship ; and 1 am rather astonished that the gentleman has admitted even that 
the States have the right to do such a thin" — to determine who shall be citizens. But 



13 

he admits that sovereign principle, and tells you tha-t Congress has no power in that 
respect In this he illustrates to you what I mean by the sovereignty of the States in 
certain things. He has admitted in his remarks, that the power of conferring citizen- 
ship is one which is vested in the States, and that Congress has no right to take it from 
them or modify it. Very well. Now, I have here a series of Acts on this subject, 
(although I am sorry to say I shall not be able to specify them all at this late hour,) 
which have been passed by Congress, all going to give the negro certain rights, immu- 
nities, privileges, and protections, which he did not formerly enjoy. I will for the 
present simply turn to a few of these Acts, and show you how they culmi- 
nate. They are with regard to the negroes of the South. They are Acts of every con- 
ceivable character in relation to the negroes — protecting them, giving them piivileo-es 
and immunities; and you will be enabled to determine whether I am correct in stating 
the result of these Acts. Here is an Act (Statutes at Large of the United States, 
Vol. XII, page 650, chap, xxxiii,) entitled "An Act to incorporate the National 
Association for the relief of destitute colored women and children." It incorporates 
persons who are to be citizens of Washington City, for the purpose of giving negroes 
certain immunities in an association in that city. 

I come now to chapter ciii, page 796, of the same volume, in which certain persons 
are constituted and declared to be a body politic and corporate by the name and title of 
"The Institution for the Education of Colored Youth," to be located in the District of 
Columbia, and the objects of the institution are to educate and improve the moral and. 
intellectual condition of such of the colored youth of the nation as may be placed under 
its care and influence. 

I then come to chapter cv, where I find "An Act to incorporate the ' St. Ann's. 
Infant Asylum' in the District of Columbia;" and I find that in section second there is 
no distinction taken between whites and blacks, but it is provided that the corporation 
shall take charge of all foundlings and infant children committed to their care. 

I have not time now to show the extent of these Acts which have been pass.ed for the 
first time iu relation to the colored race. I know that in most cases of this kind 
progress toward results is slow ; but we must bear in mind the fact that this war 13 
being car Had on. for the purpose of freeing the slaves, and for no other purpose, and. 
concurrent with this, comes this' extensive system of negro education and exclusive 
benevolence. I have heretofore asked the gentleman, and I still ask him, what the war 
is for, if I am not correct in this; whether it is to be an eternal war, or whether it is a 
war for peace. I also ask him what he has asked me, as to the condition of the States 
of the South — whether they are within the Union or not within the Union. This is an 
important question, which I suppose he will yet answer, and which I have asked iu the 
course of the debate. All these are important for the purpose of showing why the war 
is carried on, and to what results, and for what object. I want to get at the fact; I 
want to get at the marrow, the intention, the design. That is my reason for asking 
these questions; I do not do it for the purpose of putting the gentleman in u dilemma. 
My object, is to illustrate this one point as to the theory and doctrine of the administra- 
tion ; for I see different gentlemen who support that administration, taking opposite and 
totally diverse views on this subject. 

I will at another time take up the gentleman's answers to certain questions; but for 
the present, I will devote the few moments. left me to some matters left open in the last 
discussion — matters to which the gentleman alluded, and which I did not at that time 
answer. 

I think that the gentleman alluded, in his last speech — or one of his late speeches, to 
what he had seen and heard in relation to. the announcement of the Democratic party 
about a "ftk'e ballot or a Jree fijlif." The gentleman has introduced that, and I will try 
to tell him, if I can, precisely what is meant by it. The party to which the gentleman 
belongs has in a measure answered it, or attempted to answer it, or put a construction 
upon it. In their procession on a Saturday night, a week or so ago, they took up this 
very question of " a free ballot or a free fight," and they added a few words which made 
the motto read thus : " A free ballot for loyal men ; a free fight with traitors." Now, 
I will ask the gentleman to explain to me the meaning of that qualification. Iu explain- 
ing my theory on the subject, I may go a little into his province, and say what I understand 
his friends to mean. One of the cardinal rights which we claim is the right to a free 



14 

election, unawed by bayonets, unchanged by fraud. The gentleman has referred me to 
the courts as the tribunals for the adjudication of my rights, when he knows that I have 
no status there to have my rights adjudicated ; he and his party have passed laws which 
deprive me of that resource. He tells me, also, that there is another way in which, if a 
wrong is done, it may be righted ; and he says that mode is through the ballot-box — by 
election. Now, sir, all that the Democratic party asks is that right of election shall be 
untrammelled; a free election, or a free fight. That is what we ask and that is what 
we propose when we say that, if you will allow us, we will resort to that. We have 
stood passive under more than any suffering people ever endured, for the purpose of 
trying from time to time to vindicate ourselves by that very right of free ballot. But 
we know and you know that the free expression of opinion has, upon one pretext or 
another, been on different occasions put down — that men have been kept away from the 
ballot-box — that there have been unusual oaths and tests put to them before they were 
allowed to vote Thus the sovereign right which resides in the citizen has been tram- 
pled upon, or means have been used to prevent its exercise. 

The motto which the gentleman refers to as having been adopted by the Democratic 
party should have, I think, precisely the construction which you would naturally put 
upon it — that here where there is no war raging and where there is no excuse for bayo- 
nets about, the ballot-box, there shall be a free ballot, or we fight for the privilege. I 
do not mince my words, gentlemen; that is just what we mean. It may be " disloyal" 
to say so. But when you say " a free ballot for loyal men; a free fight with traitors," 
I ask you what you mean by these qualifications, and if you apply them to Pennsylvania. 
That is the State I am defending and fighting for — not for South Carolina or ahv other 
State, and I ask you to apply all that you have to say on that subject to Pennsylvania ; 
and I now assert again that the doctrine of the Democratic party is, that we will go to 
the tribunal to Which you direct us, and we will struggle there for that right; and if 
your qualification means that the free ballot is only to be for "loyal" men, who, accord- 
ing to your meaning are the supporters of the administration, then I tell you that the 
second part of the proposition does come in. We do not intend that you shall judge 
that you alone have the right to vote. 

That is what we mean by the "free ballot," which we claim. I should not have 
caused a shock to that delicate sense of propriety which would have every citizen bow 
when the Administration nods, if the gentleman had not alluded to it. It is a cardinal 
principle of the party, and I answer frankly that it is going to be carried out in Penn- 
sylvania. Do not refer me to Delaware or Maryland or Kentucky. Give me your 
application to Pennsylvania, and tell me whether I am " loyal" enough to vote side by 
side with you in Pennsylvania, at the coming election. And when you announce " a free 
fight with traitors," let me know whether every Democrat who stands up in support of 
his principles as against yours is a traitor or not. That is what I want answered; and 
I reaffirm the doctrine that the Democratic party do intend, as far as lies within our 
manhoud, to have a free ballot. Do not bar our way, sir, or, I tell you, in full view of 
the solemnity of the result, there will be dead bodies in front of the ballot-box. [At 
this point, there were mingled hisses and applause, and considerable confusion, which it 
required the interposition of the moderator to suppress.] Now, gentlemen, I am not 
discussing this matter in any spirit of violence or passion; I am not discussiug it with 
threats. I was asked what we meant; and just precisely what you would say, I say. 
My Republican friends, suppose that we should elect George B. McClellan, President; 
suppose that at a subsequent election, the question should be between his re-eleclion and 
the election of sombody else ; and suppose you should put on your banners these words, 
" A free ballot or a free fight." Put yourselves in that situation. Now, you know how 
we have been arrested and dragged off to Fort Lafayette and other places without any 
trial. You know how futile it is for us to go to court for the -vindication of our rights. 
You know that you can plead the President's order in justification of anything that a 
man may do agaiust my personal liberty. I have not the legal tribunals left to me; 
you know it I have not the right to resort to them for the settlement of questions 
affecting my liberty. What, then is left to me? There is nothing left to me but the 
ballot; and, I tell you, I do want that ballot sacred; I do want my right to that ballot 
protected and respected. It is because bayonets have glistened around ballot-boxes that 
you have put it into our heads that there may be such an alternative. We have not 



15 

raised up a difficulty of this kind on our own more notion or motion ; you have suggested 
that there may be that difficulty ; and we tell you frankly and kindly, you must not bar 
our way to the last resort that is left for us. Give us that ; stand the test of the peo- 
ple's votes as men ; and if Mr. Lincoln or your candidates at the October election be 
not elected, have the satisfaction of knowing that you have done your duty under 
the law, and that the people have pronounced upon you. But give us, for God's sake, 
that last rio-ht of ours. Let us go untramelled to the ballot-box. Keep your bayonets 
away from it, and let. the people— not the army, not the Administration, not the sup- 
porters of any particular policy — let the people of Pennsylvania say whom they will have 
to rule over them, under the Constitution and the laws. This is all we ask, and what 
we will have. 

Do not call us " traitors." We have heard enough of that. If we are traitors, are 
you not strong enough with your bayonets to drag us before the tribunals of the country 
and try us for treason ? Why, sir, if there is any man in the community who believes 
another man to be a traitor, and yet does not take him before the tribunals of the country 
under the law that he may be tried as such, that man is an accessory in treason. 

But, sir, that is what we mean. Leave us this last right. Do not say that we are 
traitors, and then proceed to pronounce judgment upon us, acting as judge, jury and 
executioner. That is what we mean when we give this warning. It is not addressed to 
you, sir, nor to the gentlemen who are here. No; I know perfectly well that the men 
who have sat here so honestly and earnestly, are men who bar no man's rights on either 
side. In reference to anything under the law and the Constitution, I would trust myself 
to the very death with my Republican friends who have attended these meetings. It is 
not from such as you that I fear for my country or my rights. You have behaved too 
nobly for that. You have behaved as men who believe in the importance of men's rights. 
It is not such as you to whom we address ourselves; it is only to those who have ulterior 
objects, bad designs, and the heart to commit crimes in furtherance of those designs. 



JOHN CAMPBELL., Publisher, 

419 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. 



fffl 



°» /-».\ c *.^** /\^\ 4 



d 







£**y v^v v^v %*?&'#> 

<&r.% /.**£:% /\-^fc% **;£&>•> 




